Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, March 9, 1994 TAG: 9403090194
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By ALLISON BLAKE STAFF WRITER NOTE: below
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Attorneys - for the U.S. Justice Department on one side, and the state and VMI on the other - filed thick documents in U.S. District Court in Roanoke. They outlined their versions of what happened last month during six days of testimony about the proposed Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership.
The institute, to be housed at private Mary Baldwin College, is the state's answer to a 1992 appeals court ruling that VMI's all-male policy is unconstitutional. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said VMI could go coed, go private or come up with a creative, or parallel, program for women. The ruling could be the crux of the case, as both sides struggle to interpret what the appeals court meant.
U.S. District Judge Jackson Kiser had ruled in 1991 that VMI could remain all-male, but was overturned by the appeals court. The recent trial was remanded to his courtroom, although his decision in this phase of the case ``is still a long way off,'' said a secretary in his office Tuesday.
Kiser said during last month's trial that the appeals court's decision ``could be read both ways,'' requiring ``a military education very close to or just like VMI,'' or simply a program whose graduates are self-confident citizen-soldiers.
In the newest court papers, the Justice Department hammered at the many nonmilitary aspects of the leadership institute.
But William Broaddus, an attorney for VMI, said Tuesday that ``If the court of appeals had intended to require the commonwealth to provide a military program identical to the program for VMI, I'm confident they would have said it.''
Both sides sought to bolster their arguments by quoting the ongoing case against The Citadel, South Carolina's all-male military college. Shannon Faulkner, a woman, has won the right to attend day classes there until the full case can be heard. Her case is before the same appeals court that considered the VMI case.
VMI's side quoted a VMI reference in the Faulkner case: ``The [appeals] order did not ... direct that any parallel program which the state might choose to provide be identical for both men and women.''
And the Justice Department quoted an expanded version of the same passage - but emphasized that the court objected to the state's offering the military experience only to men.
In Tuesday's court papers, the two sides also quoted a witness whose expertise they've both relied upon.
Alexander Astin, an expert in university program assessment, testified on behalf of the Justice Department last month. But he first appeared in the case three years ago - when VMI's defenders quoted one of his books, which found potential benefits in single-gender education for college-age students.
Blasting his testimony last month - in which he advocated coeducation - VMI's newest brief said: ``Dr. Astin's apparent failure to take into account his well-documented differences between college-age men and women ... renders his testimony highly suspect.''
Also, both sides discussed the finances of the program at Mary Baldwin - a touchy issue at trial. VMI flatly said Tuesday that a government financial expert based his analysis of Mary Baldwin's finances on ``wrong'' information. Also, quoting state Secretary of Education Beverly Sgro, the VMI side said the state will fund in-state cadets at Mary Baldwin at the same level it gives to VMI.
But the Justice Department, apparently seizing on the financial difference between a public and a private college, said women students will lose the benefit of $490,415 in state funding that VMI gets. Also, the department said, the women in the program will no longer be eligible for public grants typically given to private-school students.
The state already has reserved enough funding to make up the difference in tuition and fees between Mary Baldwin and VMI.
In the end, neither side budged from its long-held position. With the backing of the state, VMI concluded that Kiser should approve the women's program. The Justice Department demanded the admission of women to VMI.
And both sides are struggling to win the argument over how to interpret the 4th Circuit's decision. In an interview last week, the attorney heading the Justice Department's legal team said the appeals court ruling is unique.
Speaking of his ``concern'' about the relationship between vastly different VMI and Mary Baldwin, Nathaniel Douglas said, ``I can think of no case where this type of relationship has been allowed to remedy a constitutional violation.''
by CNB